posted at 5:21 pm on May 8, 2012 by Allahpundit

The polls in Indiana close promptly at 6 p.m. ET. If you believe the latest numbers, we’ll get a call sooner rather than later. How did it come to this? WaPo:

At the start of 2011, Lugar met with senior party strategists who walked him through the mistakes made by the likes of Murkowski and Bennett — and emphasized how he too was vulnerable unless he took a far more aggressive approach to the possibility of a primary fight. Lugar chose not to heed those warnings.

Instead, the senator seemed to believe — wrongly — that his situation was unique, that his connection to voters in the Hoosier State went deeper and was, therefore, tougher to break than those of his losing colleagues…

“Conventional wisdom is that he should have gone nuclear early, but that would have killed him out of the gate,” said one Republican strategist who has worked in the state and is sympathetic to the incumbent. “Indiana would simply not have accepted that from him.”

The other problem for Lugar, according to the source, was that there was never a clean hit available on Mourdock that matched the incumbent’s support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), his votes on judges, nagging residency questions, and, yes, the friendliness between him and President Obama. (Lugar has been floated as a possible Defense Secretary in the Obama Administration.)

Contrast Lugar’s lackadaisical approach with Orrin Hatch’s aggressive backstage maneuvering to make sure this year’s Utah GOP convention was more favorably disposed to him than the last one was to Bob Bennett. The result: Lugar’s headed for retirement while Hatch came within a whisker of clinching the nomination outright and will probably win the runoff against Dan Liljenquist. Assuming it plays out that way, the conventional wisdom among Republican incumbents will be set in cement. From now on, if you see a tea-party challenge coming, you follow the McCain/Hatch approach and confront it proactively and expeditiously. There’ll be no more Bennetts or Lugars who get caught napping in the primary; from now on, everyone’s awake. I’m not sure how grassroots conservatives will counter that but I’d bet on a bigger role for outfits like FreedomWorks and the rise of tea-party Super PACs which can aggregate funds and launch damaging broadsides against incumbents before they’ve consolidated a lead against their primary opponents.

As for why a nice man like Dick Lugar needs to be retired, James Antle sums it up:

Peggy Noonan also stressed family ties when making the case for sending Lugar back to the Senate: “What Washington needs is sober and responsible adults.” Noonan didn’t disclose who the children were in this relationship.

But it is the sober and responsible adults who have accumulated a national debt larger than the country’s economy. There are two ways to demonstrate one’s sobriety and responsibility in Washington: to be as supportive of druken sailor-style fiscal irresponsibility as possible or to be as timid as possible in opposition to it.

Over in the Greenroom, Karl reminds Noonan that she seemed to have a handle on this logic not so long ago. Simply put, if you’re bracing for a brutal political war over sustainability in the age of entitlements, you’re probably not going to get much from a genial grandfatherly type whose tenure has seen more than $14 trillion added in federal debt. (Same goes for Hatch, do note.) More from Dan McLaughlin:

As I’ve noted before, besides the various ideological and cultural divides within the GOP, a core dividing line is over a sense of urgency to contain the runaway growth of federal spending and the reach of the federal government. It is difficult to picture Lugar and Hatch, as a pair of courtly octogenarians, having the necessary energy not only to seek what is apt to be a difficult partisan confrontation over these issues, but to put pressure on a president from their own party. And while Utah voters will surely be excited to go to the polls for Romney, conservative voters in other states like Indiana will need more encouragement – not yet another message that the establishment has shut them out. That’s good news in Ohio, where a fresh face (State Treasurer Josh Mandel) is on the ballot facing accused wife-beater Sherrod Brown; it may be more difficult to manage in some other races. And building a critical mass of such candidates (Mandel, Liljenquist, Mourdock, Ted Cruz in Texas, Jeff Flake in Arizona, Don Stenberg in Nebraska, Mark Neumann in Wisconsin, possibly a few others who haven’t proven themselves just yet) will make it easier to convince conservatives nationwide that even with Romney at the top, and even with some Senate races where we are resigned to moderates (Dean Heller, Scott Brown, Linda Lingle) or establishment-minded conservatives (George Allen), the party has not completely lost touch with the lessons of its victories in 2010.

Beyond all of this, on a gut level, the careerism evinced by an 80-year-old pleading for one more term in the Senate after serving 36 years is simply grotesque. (Again, same goes for Hatch.) I used to oppose term limits on grounds that the people should be fully free to choose their representatives but over time I’ve come to think the greater danger than slightly limiting their choices is letting a permanent political class calcify. If you want bold solutions to grave national problems, one surefire way to encourage them is to free politicians from reelection considerations. Give ‘em two terms in the Senate and, let’s say, six in the House and you might finally see some movement on entitlements. Might.

Here’s the Google Elections page for tracking results. Two other important races tonight. First, in Wisconsin, Democrats will choose a recall challenger for Scott Walker. Labor’s candidate is Kathleen Falk but Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is favored; the contest is bitter enough that a post-election party unity rally has been canceled, so sit back and enjoy as Trumka and his pals in Wisconsin fume. The other big contest is the North Carolina vote that would ban gay marriage — and civil unions. If the last poll is right, the vote won’t be close: It’s 55/39 in favor of the ban in a state O won in 2008, which helps explain why he’s keeping his head down on this subject this week. Gallup’s out with a new gay-marriage poll today too showing 50 percent support nationally versus 48 percent opposition, but the key is the demographics. Greg Sargent:

It’s been widely reported that Obama fears coming out for marriage equality because it could alienate culturally conservative Dems and independents in swing states. Perhaps, but sizable majorities of moderates and independents support it, making Obama’s stance all the more mystifying (though no one believes he actually opposes it).

That said, there is one other interesting data point: Gallup tells me that non-college voters oppose gay marriage by 56-43. This appears to include African Americans, but it also suggests blue collar whites — a demographic Obama has alienated and needs to win back — risk getting put off over the issue. (Incidentally, as Molly Ball points out, non-whites oppose gay marriage in almost exactly the same proportions as the rest of Americans do.)

Looking toward the November election, National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said two weeks ago that “it will probably make it more of a contest if Sen. Lugar is not the nominee, but I’m confident we’ll hold the seat.”

Not such a good night for this guy either, huh?

Update: What now for Lugar, then? He’s eager to work for another six years despite his advanced age, but he hasn’t been a private-sector guy for a long, long time. He’s friends with Obama so presumably The One will appoint him to something. Any ambassadorships open? Forget Pakistan; I mean something less stressful.

Update: Go figure that a careerist would turn bitter when finally forced to answer to his constituents.

Of Mourdock, Lugar says: “His embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance.”

Any elected Republican that doesn’t pursue a small government agenda once in office risks suffering the same fate as Lugar. Had Lugar hung on, then a lot of people would have dismissed the Tea Party as a passing fad from 2010. But now it’s clear that the movement has been underestimated once again. Tea Partiers have a lot more staying power than skeptics expected.

With the Republican presidential nomination going to the ideologically malleable Mitt Romney, supporters of limited government have recognized that their best hope for advancing the conservative agenda rests on the ability to elect as many principled conservatives to Congress as possible. That is, lawmakers who will be willing to fight for smaller government even if it means standing up to a president of their own party. The more victories the Tea Party racks up, the greater the chance that Romney will be forced to govern as a limited government conservative if elected, even if his natural inclination is to migrate to the left.

Update: Very curious. Looks like the prepared statement that Lugar released earlier was much more critical of Mourdock than the remarks he ended up delivering. Compare and contrast. Maybe his speechwriters drafted something and he thought it was too bitter? Here’s the relevant passage from the prepared remarks:

He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it…

I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that.

Update: As expected, North Carolina’s initiative to ban all forms of same-sex unions wins in a romp. Probably won’t hear too much more about gay marriage from Joe Biden during this campaign.

Update: How’s this for a beautiful result? Count the vote totals — and remember that the Democratic primary was the one being hotly contested while its GOP counterpart was a walkover:

With 60-odd percent of the vote counted in West Virginia’s Democratic primary, a man named Keith Judd can make a unique claim. He has won a greater proportion of the vote — almost 40 percent — than any other primary candidate running against Barack Obama.

Who’s Keith Judd? He’s prisoner #11593-051, currently serving out a sentence for making threats at the University of New Mexico.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Good morning. I’ve asked this question a couple of times here in other threads and on Twitter, but haven’t received an answer yet.

If gay marriage is as “popular” as the Libs and media keep telling us it is, why has it only been passed by legislation or court order? Because when it is put before the citizens for a vote – it has failed every time.

Flora Duh on May 9, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I’ll take a stab at it….

Ask 1000 people do you support gay marriage in a poll. 550 say yes, 450 say no. But on election night, 400 of the 450 NO people show up to vote but only 350 of the 550 YES people show up.

And especially for a vote taken in a primary vote. Only the people truly fired up for a cause (in this case the anti-gay people) will show up to vote. The “meh, whatever, let them marry I suppose” people aren’t going to crawl over the proverbial glass to vote.

Yep. That’s me. Insisting that the Full Faith and Credit clause says what it doesn’t. That the courts have always been wrong in interpreting it. And conveniently ignoring and not quoting the second part of that clause concerning the federal governments ability to have a say as to what is required to be recognized and what isn’t.

So me.

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Yes, it is you. The second part of the clause does not say what you think it does. Additionally, for there to be a legal challenge, a same-sex couple would have to be married in a state like Massachusetts, move to a state that forbids same-sex marriage, and then have any state benefits and recognition denied them. THEN they’d have to decide to sue. That’s how it works. That this hasn’t happened does not make a law constitutional.

Again, just because government upholds an unconstitutional law or action, or follows it up with other unconstitutional actions, it doesn’t make the law any less unconstitutional.

Yes or no question: in the pieces I bolded above, looking just at the language of both, does DOMA tack on an exception to the full faith and credit clause?

Good morning to you Flora. I don’t think gay marriage is popular at all. This lack of popularity is reflected in the votes. Sure the left loves the issue. They see it as a wedge that can win for them. Shallow thinkers are always willing to support things they haven’t thought through. Militant gays want it for the wrong reason, they don’t care about the reason, they seek to do harm to all long standing arrangements. Just for the sake of doing so. I was surprised at how folks try to define marriage in terms that simply don’t apply. Its a flawed argument. The left has never minded flawed arguments as long as they are able to implement the agenda. In this world there are certain truths. They don’t like the truth. The left is very flawed in its thinking and relies on folks that are, lazy like water, to move it forward. This thread is proof that shallow thought does not only exist on the left. The right has some problems on that front also. Well off to work for me. Have a lovely day Flora. ; )

I think the explanation is more what I said…people who are fired up about an issue show up to the polls. In this case the anti-gay people are fired up and vote. The man on the street who doesn’t care much one way or the other, doesn’t show up to vote on the issue.

It’s the same way for legalization of pot. It always passes when put on the ballot even though polling shows the opposite. That’s because people who are fired up about it, show up to vote. That’s how single issues work.

One thing I must say, though: I do so enjoy the way guys like Loser, I mean, Lugar, and Castle and Bennett lose. It makes you say to yourself, What a bunch of crybabies.

MaxMBJ on May 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Self serving career politicians are “occupying” both chambers of our legislative bodies. We need “Statesmen” but we get the addicted to power class , selling political influence domestically and internationally, and betraying their constituents who elect them.

Why is anyone over the age of 65 inhabiting the U.S. Congress? There are 535 of them out of 320 Million we are supposed to believe that they are indispensable that no one else can represent “We The People” it strains credulity. The last Indispensable American was bled dry by his country on his death bed. Compared to Dick Lugar dug into public office like a tick since 1977, Lugar helped get us into almost 16 trillion dollars of federal debt – it’s the other way around he bled his fellow countrymen, the American taxpayer.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, the voters have never voted to pass a referendum favoring gay marriage. In fact in Maine, (YES MAINE) the legislature voted for gay marriage. In November 2009, the voters in Maine voted to repeal the statute.

I currently understand the legislature of the State of Washington is considering gay marriage. It will be interesting to see if it passes and if the Voters then seek to repeal the statute.

There are all sorts of opinion polls which can be skewed etc.. and there are the polls which matter, those polls are called votes.

That’s how it works. That this hasn’t happened does not make a law constitutional.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Are you a contortionist by trade? No one has moved from a state that recognized their marriage to a state that didn’t?

I have nothing else to say. The Full Faith and Credit clause has never been read or applied the way you fantasize it should be. You can’t seem to comprehend that point. If it actually applied, as you erroneously imagine it does, then it would have been used as a successful weapon many years ago to force states to recognize gay marriages from other states.

Well, you just keep living that fantasy. I’m gonna go have a smoke myself.

I think the explanation is more what I said…people who are fired up about an issue show up to the polls. In this case the anti-gay people are fired up and vote. The man on the street who doesn’t care much one way or the other, doesn’t show up to vote on the issue.

It’s the same way for legalization of pot. It always passes when put on the ballot even though polling shows the opposite. That’s because people who are fired up about it, show up to vote. That’s how single issues work.

angryed on May 9, 2012 at 9:50 AM

The Ghey marriage issue is about a minority group that’s numbers may be as high as 5% they do have family, and friends so the percentage in favor of Same Sex marriage goes up, do those folks turn out to vote in favor though in large numbers or are they just ambivalent?

I

f the last poll is right, the vote won’t be close: It’s 55/39

39% is a significant turn out for folks voting in favor on a single issue.

Lugar and Hatch, too, should have taken the high road, and retired when they knew they would have opponents. They make themselves look foolish grasping at Power.

Also, Lugar should not have said nasty things, he needs to endorse the winner and support US. It is selfish not to do so. It makes him look foolish.

Lugar is a lot like Newt in his tenacious grasp at Power.

Of course I am not in Indiana and don’t know the tea party candidate at all, but the lesson from Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell, and even with Lisa Murkowski, when you lose get with the program right away and unite. Murkowski has not been that useful, it was selfish for her to grasp at her power that way.

Lugar needs to hand over as much help as he can to the winner, and the Republicans on the ground in Indiana need to transfer their alligance to Mourdock.

Are you a contortionist by trade? No one has moved from a state that recognized their marriage to a state that didn’t?

I have nothing else to say. The Full Faith and Credit clause has never been read or applied the way you fantasize it should be. You can’t seem to comprehend that point. If it actually applied, as you erroneously imagine it does, then it would have been used as a successful weapon many years ago to force states to recognize gay marriages from other states.

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 10:08 AM

There’s that lack of intellectual honesty again. I said that the same-sex couple would have to move to a state and be denied state benefits and recognition, THEN they’d have to decide to sue.

Not only do you not understand the Constitution, you don’t even understand how laws can be challenged.

You also dodged the yes or no question, of course.

You have nothing else to say? When did you have anything to say to begin with?

There are all sorts of opinion polls which can be skewed etc.. and there are the polls which matter, those polls are called votes.

DVPTexFla on May 9, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Put all marriages to a vote. People make bad choices that often result in divorce and broken families. Since marriages that produce children create a drain on local resources (schools, parks, etc). It would be in a community’s best interest to ensure that only serious couples marry. It is selfish for people to see their marriage as a right rather than a privilege.

I feel like I’m arguing with a 5th grader. You win because I’m stupid enough to argue with a 5th grader. I’m gonna go back to the real world where your delusion does not apply and Congress does have the historical authority to carve out exceptions to the Full Faith and Credit clause (even though in this particular case it isn’t necessary since the courts have historically refused to apply this clause when it would interfere with a states major policy issues).

I currently understand the legislature of the State of Washington is considering gay marriage. It will be interesting to see if it passes and if the Voters then seek to repeal the statute.

DVPTexFla on May 9, 2012 at 10:03 AM

The legislature isn’t considering it in WA. It passed a bill and the governor signed it.

There is a signature petition going on by a group who wants to repeal that bill via popular vote. Yet to be seen whether they’ll get the needed signatures to put the measure to a vote. And even so, it’s WA, I can’t see the people who continue to re-elect Patti Murray voting against gay marriage. But who knows, stranger things have happened.

Lugar will no longer need to worry about where his residence is actually located as far as running for office or voting. A word of advice to Lugar, get a high-backed leather chair, a labrador retriever, and put the chair near a fireplace and enjoy your remaining years on the money you made off of us. Enjoy.

Um, as soon as heterosexuals start seeking preferential treatment in the eyes of the law based on their sexual preference, yes, they will be defined as such. Until then, no – they are just people that happen to be heterosexual.

(Are libs really this dense? Someone please tell me they just have a twisted sense of humor and that they know how wrong they are, they just like jerking people’s chains…)

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Kjeil was not talking about sexual preference, but about sexual activities.

You are not defined by your sexual activities. Calling me a dense liberal won’t change that fact.

The Founding Fathers wanted their newly formed government to emulate the God of the Bible as best as they could, and marriage was/is an institution started by God. As such, they wanted the governments (local, state, federal) to formally recognize the institution of marriage, AS IT IS DEFINED BY THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.

The fact that today’s American non-Christians feel insulted/offended by this BE DAMNED.

listens2glenn on May 9, 2012 at 1:20 AM

I am talking about civil unions. The Bible says nothing about that.

But even if civil unions were mentioned in it – in the Bible women are told to be silent and the Founding Fathers didn’t allow women to vote.

I really want to know why some laws of the Bible and rules of the Founding Fathers can be broken and some not. What are your criteria?

I meant Civil Unions. Gay Marriage is even less popular, but that was banned in this state with a referendum a few years ago. Overwhelming majority voted against, despite “polls” showing \support for Gay Marriage.

“A last will and testament is not a contract. A will can be revoked at any time, regardless of promises made. If this Amendment passes, any will in which one member of a same sex couple devises his or her property to the other will be open to challenge by spurned relatives, who can claim that the will was procured through “undue influence,” in other words the love and affection between a couple engaged in a domestic relationship which is constitutionally enshrined as unlawful in North Carolina.

A power of attorney, whether for financial purposes or for health care, is not a contract. State run hospitals may be required to disregard a health care power of attorney where power is held by a domestic partner. Suppose Wimpy suffers a massive stroke and goes into a coma. Wimpy has told his domestic partner Bluto that he does not wish to be fed through a tube, unable to enjoy hamburgers as a living vegetable. Wimpy has even given Bluto a power of attorney over all health care decisions, so strongly does he feel about this. If Wimpy is hospitalized at the University of North Carolina hospitals (a state facility), Wimpy’s niece Olive, his only lawful relation, will now have a strong case to challenge Bluto’s decision on the grounds that the law does not “recognize” a power of attorney procured through a domestic partnership, which is unlawful in the State of North Carolina.”

———–

WAY TO GO EVERYBODY GOOD JOB

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Wills are always subject to challenge and always have been. Your example has no merit.

Both wills and power of attorneys can be given or assigned to anybody, regardless of relationship. The claim that this amendment will somehow change that is bogus.

You’re just repeating the spurious objections being raised by same-sex marriage advocates in trying to prove a “need” for same-sex marriage that can already be met by other longstanding legal means.

I feel like I’m arguing with a 5th grader. You win because I’m stupid enough to argue with a 5th grader. I’m gonna go back to the real world where your delusion does not apply and Congress does have the historical authority to carve out exceptions to the Full Faith and Credit clause (even though in this particular case it isn’t necessary since the courts have historically refused to apply this clause when it would interfere with a states major policy issues).

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Translation: I can’t come up with an argument and I’m unable to address an opposing viewpoint Intellectually.

The point is that it is a profound act of violence against children to allow homosexual couples to have custody of them.

The_Jacobite on May 9, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Ah.. Uh……..

Words fail me.

I know a gay man who is friends with a lesbian couple who wanted a child and so they came to an agreement, arranged something (I didn’t ask but I was told the lights were off) and the end result is one of the members of this lesbian couple is now pregnant and the child will be raised by the two women.

Great. You’re harshin’ my mellow. I had been looking at the numbers in the post, same as War Planner, and gotten very hopeful about the recall election. Now I’m stuck hoping that the turnout will be better for Walker when he’s seriously contested.

Do you have any idea how significant Walker’s numbers are? In an uncontested primary (because that knob who claimed to be the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln or whatever wasn’t opposition), typically the votes for the uncontested candidate are about 1/3 of the votes for the contested primary.

Walker beat both Barrett AND Falk combined by about 15,000 votes. He was about 40,000 votes behind ALL the Democrat candidates combined.

And if 17% of the people who voted in the Democrat primary are actually Republicans, my math says that about 114,000 of the Democrat votes might swing to Walker in June.

(How I got there: I added the total of Democrat votes, 670,288, and multiplied that by .17 to get 113,948.96)

What a climate change clown Lugar was. Too smart for his own bridges to fall for the deceptions of the scare-mongering Chicken Littles. And to not recant after it became clear as day that the AGW theory is leftist driven tripe. Good riddance.

Ask 1000 people do you support gay marriage in a poll. 550 say yes, 450 say no. But on election night, 400 of the 450 NO people show up to vote but only 350 of the 550 YES people show up.
…
angryed on May 9, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Most modern pollsters attempt to poll “likely voters” so that’s not the best explanation. A better explanation is, let’s say 550 people are against gay marriage, 450 are for it. Somebody who you do not know, and whose intentions you do not know, calls you at dinner and asks “Do you support equal rights for all, or are you a bigot?” (or at least imply that’s the question) and the majority pick option number one.

It works the opposite way in the supposed marijuana legalization cases. The majority may intend to vote for legal pot, but they aren’t going to say so at the dinner table with their teenage kids.